davegee

Too quick for me! I was about to edit to say that "However, new users should not have to resort to third party tutorials whether they are free or paid for". DG

Here's a thought Lin: If you stay abreast of the latest updates and try each new addition as it is introduced then you don't have to keep looking backwards. DG

+1 DG

Thanks for the details. I enjoyed it - it must have taken a little organising in PTE!! 1700 images per 1m 18s - 0.04588s per slide? I believe you meant 16Gb? DG

It's BB, doing what BB does best. Excellent. DG

Once is not acceptable. IMHO as always - other opinions are available. http://www.picturest...dpost__p__96464 DG

Ken, I mean "Branded" as opposed to "Unbranded". Logik, Belkin, Sandstrom, Microsoft XBox 360..................... Not expensive but but certainly not "cheap" in the nasty sense!! I agree that as far as performance is concerned there is little to choose but as far as BUILD is concerned you only need a cable to fail once in the middle of a high profile competition/show to know the worth of "good" quality build. Another point - always have a SPARE! DG

We have been using an Epson 1920x1080 Projector for 2-3 years so (in our case) I can vouch for their trouble free performance. Use GOOD HDMI Cables! DG

PTE does it? DG

IMHO, Landscape type video clips lend themselves to the "KFSD TICKED" approach. Documentary type Video Clips, perhaps, lend themselves to the "KFSD UNTICKED" approach. What has to be avoided at all costs (IMHO) is a "frozen" first or last frame of a video being on screen whilst another still image or Video Clip is faded in. There will be exceptions to this when it is deliberately used as a tool to illustrate a point. As always IMHO - other opinions are available. DG

How much happier would you be if it were 1920x1080? (Rhetorical). DG

Joy, If you can put up a Template of a single slide which shows this behaviour perhaps someone can identify the problem? DG

Den, If you make a template of your project and overwrite the existing files with their 16:9 equivalents - same name - it is probably the quickest way. List of shortcuts - have you downloaded the user guide? DG

OK, This is my opinion and not a definitive answer. HD Video is, at present 1920x1080 (I noticed that 1920x1200 is possible in the iPAD box????). What I was suggesting was that if you used 1920x1080 images in a HD (1920x1080) PTE Project with "Fixed Size" unticked and then made the iPAD Video file it MIGHT upscale to fill the iPAD screen without visible losses? Have you tried that? I also noted that the iPAD screen is 4:3? DG

Try using VNX2 to crop. Free download from Nikon. DG

Try unticking "Fixed size " and using 1920 wide??? D

Enter 4:3 in Project Options>Main ...and enter 2046x1536 in Project Options>Screen (Resolution). Or, 16:9 and 2048x1152 etc The resolution shown in "Screen" reflects the resolution of the monitor in use. DG

Restart your PC Mick, and try again? I didn't get that. DG

Stunning! DG

There ARE days when, if you stick your head above above the parapet, it is going to get shot at regardless of what hat you wear. Maybe it is time to move on. DG

Tony and Mick, You did not make it clear if you were refering to my post but if you were, please read my reply to Bob. DG

BOB, Why not - for the reasons stated above. BUT, which part of my post made you think that I was giving advice? I merely presented some figures which would, I hoped, give the reader the necessary information to make an informed decision. I tried very hard to not make it look like advice and present a case for both sides. I even went to the trouble of stating that it was an OPINION. You mentioned DVDs. Again this is just my OPINION and not advice. I see no merit in presenting a TV etc with a 720x405 pixel image (PAL) from a DVD when I could be giving it the same AR at 1920x1080 pixels from an MPEG4 file via a USB key. A TV without USB is not a problem these days because there are other ways of getting from USB to TV via HDMI. We have moved on. DG

Can you not use PNG files as masks? DG

Some background information: With regard to projectors - two examples - (I'll ignore the 1400x1050 option). 4:3 (1024x768) - if outputting a 4:3 show you are using 786432 pixels to show your images with zero pixels "wasted". 4:3 (1024x768) - if outputting a 16:9 show you are using 589824 pixels to show your images with 196608 pixels "wasted". 16:9 (1920x1080) - if outputting a 16:9 show you are using 2073600 pixels to show your images with zero pixels "wasted". 16:9 (1920x1080) - if outputting a 4:3 show you are using 1555200 pixels to show your images with 518400 pixels "wasted". In the case of the 4:3 projector I can see little merit in projecting a "bigger / wider" image using just 75% of the available resolution. In the case of the 16:9 projector I can see little merit in projecting a "squarerr" image using (again) just 75% of the available resolution. Making the images fit the screen in either case does not alter the fact that, in the examples I have given, NOT filling the available resolution because of AR mismatches results in less than optimum useage of the resources. Just IMHO etc etc etc. DG